United States v. Williams

United States District Court, W.D. New York

January 24, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,v.ANTONIO WILLIAMS, Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The
Defendant, Antonio Williams, is charged in a one-count
petition for offender under supervision. The petition alleges
that the Defendant punched a man in the back of the head,
causing him “to see stars, ” while the man was
waiting for an elevator at the apartment building in which he
and the Defendant both live. The petition alleges that the
Defendant therefore committed a state crime in violation of
the terms of his supervised release.[1]

The
Defendant has moved for bail pending the disposition of the
violation petition. A person charged with a violation of
supervised release “shall . . . be detained, unless the
judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that
the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the
safety of any other person or the community if
released.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1); Fed. R. Crim.
P. 32.1(a)(6). The Defendant makes two arguments for release.

First,
the Defendant points to the fact that he served approximately
five years longer in prison than he should have
served.[2] The Defendant therefore argues that, as a
a maintenance worker in his apartment building; that, in the
presence of two U.S. Probation Officers, the Defendant
“smashed a television with his fist and flipped a
table” after being questioned about a
“heavy-gauged steel pipe wrapped in black electrical
tape” in his apartment; and that he threatened to
“obtain wood and set fire to [his] apartment
building” because the heat was not working. The Court
has considered the fact that the Defendant may be prone to
hyperbole. The Court has also considered that, in making a
bail decision, a court must distinguish between, on the one
hand, a person who genuinely poses a threat and, on the
other, a person who is simply difficult to deal with. Even
with these considerations in mind, however, the
Defendant's conduct appears to show that his release
would pose a threat to the community or to others.

Second,
the Defendant points to his medical condition as a basis for
release. Even accepting the Probation Officer's position
that the Defendant “often exaggerated his medical
condition, ” the Defendant's medical condition
appears to be serious: defense counsel represents that the
Defendant has “chronic, severe diabetes that needs near
constant care”; that he currently sees six physicians,
including an infectious disease specialist; that he has a
“heart condition”; that his eyes are
“deteriorating” and will soon require surgery;
and that he suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress
disorder.

Based
largely on his medical history, the Defendant has easily
shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he poses little
flight risk. The Defendant's medical condition, as well
as his treatment needs, make it very unlikely that he would
attempt to flee.

What
makes this case more difficult, however, is the
Defendant's recent alleged behavior. The Probation
Officer reports, for instance, that the Defendant has
threatened 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), however, Judge Michael A.
Telesca vacated the Defendant's sentence. The parties
then stipulated that the Defendant should be resentenced to a
term of imprisonment of time-served, because he “ha[d]
served more time than either of the parties' calculation
of the defendant's revised sentencing range.”
Docket No. 333 at 1.

The
Defendant has consented to conditions of release that include
electronic monitoring. But many of the allegations that give
the Court concern are not the sort of things that electronic
monitoring can help prevent: the Probation Officer's
memorandum alleges damage to property and possession of what
could fairly be described as a weapon. And the report details
other conduct-namely, threats and intimidation-that
electronic monitoring can do little to prevent. Thus, based
largely on the allegations in the Probation Officer's
memorandum, the Court concludes that the Defendant has not
shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he would not
pose a danger to others and to the community if he were
released.

The
Defendant's motion for release is therefore denied.
However, after considering the arguments in the
Defendant's motion, the Court intends to expedite
resolution of this case. Thus, the parties shall appear for a
status conference on January 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. At that
appearance, the parties should be prepared, if necessary, to
set a date for an evidentiary hearing in the near future.

SO
ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] The petition alleges that that the
Defendant committed assault in the third-degree (a
misdemeanor), in violation of New York Penal Law §
120.00-01.

[2] The Defendant was originally sentenced
to 156 months&#39; imprisonment pursuant to the Armed Career
Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. &sect; 924(e). After the
Supreme Court&#39;s decision in Johnson v. United
States, matter of fairness, he should be released
pending the disposition of the violation petition. It goes
without saying that any time spent in prison beyond that
authorized by law-much less five years-is too much time. But
the only question before the Court is whether the Defendant
has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he will
neither flee nor pose a danger to the safety of any other
person or the community. If the Defendant is ultimately found
to have violated the terms of his supervised ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.